Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make a few remarks in passing on the tabling of this report. As the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, Senator Kroger, has quite capably covered the background and the thrust of the report, there is no need to replicate her comments because they were entirely accurate. I want to make one or two observations in passing on this ongoing saga of what is appropriate behaviour and what is not appropriate behaviour and the reaction of senior personnel within Defence when things become unfortunately public. The back­ground to this is quite clearly on the public record. I think it is fair to say that the opposition some considerable time ago became concerned at the treatment of three senior petty officers, their removal from the ship in Singapore under difficult circum­stances at best and the subsequent treatment of those three senior petty officers by different levels of command within Navy and the armed services generally. There were serious concerns as to their treatment. and whether they had received natural justice, proper process and the like.

Arising from those complaints, the opposition brought the matter to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee and an inquiry was conducted. Of course, you often do not know what you are going to get when you initiate inquiries, and the allegations in respect of the petty officers, no matter how serious, have become subsumed by a whole range of other matters that Mr Gyles has discovered after his exhaustive fashioning of questioning. They go to matters of Defence regulations; appropriate command responses from the officer of the ship to Defence legal, to fleet command and to the most senior echelons of Defence; behaviour onboard ship at sea and in port concerning officers—very senior enlisted personnel of both genders—behaviour by female juniors and the way they were treated in a range of situations that were, frankly, deplorable; and the reaction as that has been progressively made public. Further inquiries are countenanced by Mr Gyles, and of course the government has been appalled at the revelations, such that Minister Smith has ordered there be no less than six separate inquiries convened and carried out on a whole range of matters that derive particularly and solely from the behaviour on board as reported by Mr Gyles QC.

I simply want to say a couple of things on the public record. The whole genesis of this matter arises from the particular courage of three female senior personnel onboard HMAS Success. One was the deputy of the ship—the XO, as I understand it—and the other two were senior women onboard. I do not know whether they were officers or enlisted personnel, but what is important is the way they conducted themselves and the courage they showed. They became aware of developments onboard as affected very young women—18, 19 and 20. The dev­elopments went to inappropriate sexual behaviour and the consequences of such behaviour in terms of allegations of threats, bullying, intimidation, harm and the like. Those three senior female personnel took it upon themselves to alert the commanding officer of the ship, and he then set things in train. So their courage in identifying the problem, acting on behalf of a more junior group of females and setting in train processes should be acknowledged and they should be praised.

In light of that—one must be careful at this stage because there is going to be further inquiry by Mr Gyles—the conclusions of the Senate committee and its recommendations are couched in very strong language. We note that unacceptable behaviour has occurred. We note that there have been myriad inquiries in this area over the last eight or 10 years. We note that there have been reams and reams of recommendations. We note that Navy, the other armed services and Defence generally had acknowledged past mistakes and set in place a whole range of reforms, changes, practices, education, seminars and warnings, and the first time they came under test the whole edifice that had been erected fell down and failed. One almost draws the conclusion that all of the attempts at reform to date have not been worth two bob. Perhaps it is a bit preliminary to make that final conclusion; but, as the chair's draft and recommendation make quite clear, perhaps it is time to say ongoing attempts to teach, to lead, to manage, to educate and to show the proper way to people who are recalcitrant in their behav–iour when members of the armed forces—perhaps we have spent sufficient tens of millions of dollars and thousands of man hours in going down that path.

Perhaps it might be time to go back to one of the original key recommendations that has given rise to this whole report, and that is that where men and women, seniors and juniors, and officers and enlisted personnel generally in the armed forces are so aggrieved at behaviour that they have received—they regard it as so inappropriate, so unfair or so unjust—there should be established an independent mechanism within Defence whereby person A can go to say: 'I want to complain about this sort of behaviour. It was bad for these reasons. I am harmed in this way.' They could have it properly and independently investigated, and a solution could come forward as opposed to constantly having peer review—constant appeals from Caesar to Caesar about Caesar's behaviour.

Maybe the lesson that should be learnt from the last eight or 10 years is that some forms of behaviour are so unacceptable and have such untoward consequences that it is time to say we are going to change. We are going to have an independent unit—by all means within Defence—authorised by statute whereby young boys and young girls who from time to time receive what he says politely is 'inappropriate treatment' can have those treatments investigated. They are protected. They are not transferred. They are not punished. They are not put into another position. They are not put into another unit. An officer is not brought in to supervise their work on a regular basis. It happens in every major corporation in this country. It happens in the police forces, the fire brigades and the country fire brigades. When people make complaints they can have them independently investigated, the complaints upheld or dismissed and a remedy imposed. It is not an unreasonable request.

It is even more reasonable when the people who are making the complaints are those we choose to send to Afghanistan or Iraq, in the middle of the desert, where they all face the risk of being blown up or killed. That is a necessary consequence of joining the armed forces and going on active services. You choose to put your life in harm's way. If you choose to do that—and we do not have conscription in this country—it is not unreasonable that simple, normal standards of personal behaviour that everyone in this place, everyone who is a member of a trade union and everyone who works for a major company expects are observed and that investigation of complaints can be made.

In this report, the committee chair has carefully couched her language, but maybe it is time to return to one of the original recommendations and have a proper, serious, independent investigative unit. Mr Gyles will look at that in due course. I am sure the committee will make him aware of its views and feelings, having some corporate know­ledge of this. But I think it is time to put that recommendation on the table. We have now had many, many ministers and many assistant ministers in successive govern­ments over 10 years—and still we have the sorts of problems that 17-, 18- and 19-year-old boys and girls should not have to countenance and, when they do occur, should be remedied as a matter of urgency. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.